2026:CGHC:7512 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1610 of 2026 Ramcharan Ram S/o Late Dhodharam Aged About 73 Years R/o Adarsh Nagar, Sitapur, Block Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

... Petitioner Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur , District- Raipur (C.G.)

3 - The District Education Officer, Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - The Block Education Officer Mainpat District- Surguja (C.G.) 5 - The Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pension Ambikapur, District-

Surguja (C.G.)

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, P.L.

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU

Order on Board

11/02/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, after attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service on 30.06.2015.

He contended that the petitioner accrued an increment on 01.07.2015; however, as he stood retired on 30.06.2015, the increment was not added. The petitioner is entitled for the addition of a notional increment for the purpose of calculating retiral dues in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Director (Admn. & HR), KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani & Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401. He also contended that, pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, bunch of writ petitions has been disposed of by this High Court. The bunch of writ petitions disposed of by this High Court includes WPS No. 3036 of 2020 (Pitambar Singh Nayak v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), decided on 10.07.2023. Therefore, similar order may be passed.

2. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

3. Upon due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has been followed in a series of writ petitions by this High Court. In the case of Pitambar Singh Nayak (supra), it was observed as under in Para 12 & 13:

“12. The respondents are directed to verify the case of each of the petitioners as to whether they have been granted increment from 1st of January of the year in which they have retired. That if in the course of inquiry/scrutiny it is found that they have not been granted increment, appropriate steps for grant of increment which fell due on 1st of July be added to the basic pay of each of the petitioners and accordingly calculate the post retiral benefits including the pensionary benefits. Let this entire exercise be concluded within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

13. It is made clear that now that these writ petitions are being allowed particularly in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court each of the petitioners would be entitled for the arrears of the difference of amount from the date of retirement onwards.”

4. The present writ petition also deserves to be, and is accordingly, disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in Pitamber Singh (supra) decided on 10.07.2023.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition stand disposed of.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

JUDGE

Saurabh